Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff

Mxsmanic wrote:

It will probably sound different if it fails. In some cases engine indicators
on the instrument panel may reveal a problem first. If anything goes wrong
with the engine(s), I'll land at the next available airport.

Yeah, it worked for Jeff Ethell.

-c

A Lieberman wrote:
On May 20, 7:56 am, Stealth Pilot
wrote:
On Sun, 18 May 2008 15:47:19 -0700 (PDT), A Lieberman





wrote:
On May 18, 5:34 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Where I was referring to the sensations issue was directly concerned
with one pilot who commented that verifying an instrument reading with a
physical sensation was important. My point was that instrument
verification should be done against other instruments with the EXCLUSION
of physical sensation from that equation.
I think my point was when there is an action, there should be a
reaction, and if I don't feel the reaction (which is faster then
registering on the instrument), then I need to explore further.
I am talking the very subtle changes, not changes requiring large
power changes.
For example, I come down the ILS at 90 knots with 1900 rpm. If
headwinds cause my groundspeed to drop below 90 knots and I add lets
say 25 RPM to recapture the glideslope and I DON"T feel it in my seat
of the pants, first place I will look is the temperature probe.
Again, talking subtle 25 RPM just finger tip touch to the controls.
If I feel the extra oomph / firmness in my seat of the pants with the
extra 25 RPM and the glideslope starts to recapture, that is a
verification of my action and reaction.
Again, very subtle changes I am look and feeling for. I am not saying
make turns by the seat of my pants, primarily verifying actions of
power settings.
In my Friday incident, I could tell my attitude indicator of 20 to 30
degree pitch up AND not feeling the extra G's in my rear end, that
something was discrepant having flown this plane for over 600 hours..
That had me going to my backup instruments IMMEDIATELY (VSI and
airspeed) for my analysis and quickly identifying the vacuum as
suspect..
It's not that I even remotely navigated by the seat of my pants, but
something was amiss was felt.
I absolutely agree based on time and time again history, that any
feelings in the head absolutely has to be ignored, instruments are
there for that, but for verification of power adjustments, I see no
reason why AS A TOOL, the feeling in your rear end cannot be used as a
verification of the reaction of your actioin (adding or reducing
power).
The feeling of the seat of your pants is NOT to be used in determining
upright status in IMC, that I will say, and don't want to mislead
anybody that I condone that, just using it to verify my action of
power is working and the reaction of instrumentation TRENDS are
following what my seat of the pants feel is.
you are setting your self up for a fatal accident.
you need to learn about somatogravic thresholds, the effect of alcohol
on the viscosity of the fluids of the inner ear and above all you need

Did you read my entire post???? I am not talking about inner ear or
leans. I have already addressed this with Dudley.

I am talking about a feeling a response to an input of power. If I
add power, I should feel it in the seat of my pants. This has nothing
to do with head sensations.

I think the rest of my posts explain very clearly what I am looking
for (or absense of).

NOTHING in my posts says to ignore the instruments. All of my posts
do say to ignore what you feel in your head and trust the instruments.

The feeling of thrust in the seat of your pants confirms and verify
the instruments motions especially when you slip below the glideslope,
or in a climb.

Everything you talk about above I agree with but what I am doing is
adding a tool in my tool kit by expecting a certain feeling in the
seat of my pants.

If I don't get it, then I am going to cross check my primary
instrumentation with my secondary to sort out the discrepancy.

In my case that I have repeated so many times, an AI showing a 20
degree pitch up should have placed some G's in the seat of my pants.
THIS WAS A DRAMATIC CHANGE. This has nothing to do with leans. The G
feeling in the seat of my pants was absent, so I went to secondary
instruments and within 20 seconds of time, found I had a bad AI.

I'd hardly think that troubleshooting a vacuum system and resolving
the descrepancy within 20 seconds is setting me up for a statistic.

The seat of your pants is a tool that can be used in an IA
environment. This does not replace the instruments in no manner shape
or form nor is it to be confused with leans. Two different
sensations, one is to be ignored COMPLETELY (leans), one not to be
ignored, but a supplement to verify what you see on your panel (seat
of your pants).

I'm afraid we're still not on the same page.
If you are USING a seat of the pants sensation as a cue to ACT rather
than as a cue that expansion of the cross check is warranted, you are
going to die in instrument conditions.....period!
You NEVER include a seat of the pants feeling into your reactive action
path when on instruments.
Look; let me make this perfectly clear. There is NO actionable
difference between the "leans" and a "seat of the pants" sensation. BOTH
are present and of course felt. BOTH might be telling you something so
they should not be ignored. But BOTH are physical sensations and as such
are NEVER used as a source to make a control change while IFR.
If you feel a physical sensation while on instruments, it is indeed a
cue, but NOT an actionable cue. ALL sensations are simply there. You
NEVER act in ANY way on what ANY sensation is giving you in the way of a
cue. If the sensation is expected by something you have done control
wise that's fine. If it isn't, don't act on it. Your scan is in progress
at all times. If something looks out of line, EXPAND THE SCAN!
You control the aircraft based on instrument cues ONLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You exist in a world of physical cues. Simply know they are there and go
to the panel!!
God.I hope this clears this up!

--
Dudley Henriques

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message

I flew from KSAN to KLAX yesterday in my sim, in zero visibility, and I
lived.
Obviously I had no physical sensations to count upon, and yet somehow I
managed to get to my destination and land.

You also tried to 'fly' from KTEX to KASE, slammed into a mountain , and
lived.

The outcome obviously has nothing to do with the actions taken.

gatt wrote in
news
Mxsmanic wrote:
Viperdoc writes:

Anthony, were all of your pronouncements based upon your instrument
training? Who was your instructor? What did you get on the written
exam? How much time do you have in IMC (real, not simulated?)

All of my statements are based on study.

Bull****. What did you study? The usenet?

-c

There are a few sim sites with chat areas. Loads of crap just like he
spews comes out in those places. Lots of twits just like him sayin
gthings like "my uncle is a pilot and shot down the red baron and he
says you're full of it"
Not a lot of real pilots there.... The guys who make the models are
interesting, though. They do tend to be rewriting the laws of physics as
often as not, however...


Bertie

On May 20, 7:16 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote :



On May 20, 4:51 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote
:

A Lieberman writes:

ANSWER HIS QUESTION ABOVE. WHICH ENGINE INDICATORS

For a piston airplane, tachometer, manifold pressure, CHT and EGT,
engine monitor if I have one (I do in the Bonanza).

That's not answering the question. Which one do you look at first
fjukkwit? And why would you look anyway? On my airplane, for
instance, the vast majority of the instruments are concealed after
engine start.. Only three left.

Bertie

Is it a series 35 or 50?

B757. there are two center screens, the upper one dispays EPR N1 and EGT
and the lower screen displays the rest of the stuff. After engine start
we shut of the lower screen and if the EICAS system has something to
tell us that's of any interest on that screen, like your oil has all
disappeared, for instance, then the screen re-appears. We leave it off
for the duration of the flight, though. Keeps the clutter in your head
to a minimum.
In the event of an engine failure, though, that screen is the least of
your worries. Keeping the airplane straight is the main prioirity and of
course you're going to feel the yaw in your ass before you notice
anything else. You'd be onto the instruments straight away to determine
th ecorrection required, though you'd already have a very good idea, and
a big bootful of rudder and/ or aileron to keep you from rolling on your
back. After this has settled down, you ensure your flight path is
correct, and then you'd check out your engine instruments to determine
what the problem is. And you have to do this carefully and judiciously,
because they can lie to you too, particularly if some damage has
occured. Of course, in a piston there's an additional problem that
mxtard has no idea of either, and that is that the MP is next to useless
in determining the side that's failed because the MP you might have been
pulling could be the same as ambient anyway. Anyhow, the point is, the
first clue you're going to get is your head bouncing off either a window
or your copilot. If you've been staring at your engine gauges
anticipating a failure as you fly along, you're probably going to fly
into something sooner rather than later....
But of course MX would ignore that feeling in his ass as one of the
donkeys retired and quickly analize his clocks. Then, and only then,
would he take the appropriate action, which , by this time, would be to
make a brief utterance of regret as his aircraft entered the earth
inverted.

Bertie

no fair! His bonanza doesn't have turbo props!

Hell yes, it's the kick in the ass that usually lets you know
something untoward is in the offing, along with auditory cues, g-
loading, etc., but if you don't verify with instruments then you could
end up well and truly screwed...and sometimes that helps to only a
point. There was the case of the airliner in central america
(1980's?) that went into an inverted dive because the pilot's
artificial horizon (if memory serves) was slaved to the co-pilot's and
that one had a wiggy connection such that it was giving intermittently
correct readings. They did a perfect 1g maneuver too- right into the
ground (at night)....but the wings and such were come off first.

I've always wondered why, in such circumstances, one would not take
the time to verify the situation by checking rate of climb/descent and
indicated airspeed rather than trust *one* instrument?

wrote in
:

On May 20, 7:16 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote
innews:c0626994-688d-465b-b9bd-3d9d4878a612
@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.c
om:



On May 20, 4:51 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote
:

A Lieberman writes:

ANSWER HIS QUESTION ABOVE. WHICH ENGINE INDICATORS

For a piston airplane, tachometer, manifold pressure, CHT and
EGT, engine monitor if I have one (I do in the Bonanza).

That's not answering the question. Which one do you look at first
fjukkwit? And why would you look anyway? On my airplane, for
instance, the vast majority of the instruments are concealed after
engine start.. Only three left.

Bertie

Is it a series 35 or 50?

B757. there are two center screens, the upper one dispays EPR N1 and
EGT and the lower screen displays the rest of the stuff. After engine
start we shut of the lower screen and if the EICAS system has
something to tell us that's of any interest on that screen, like your
oil has all disappeared, for instance, then the screen re-appears. We
leave it off for the duration of the flight, though. Keeps the
clutter in your head to a minimum.
In the event of an engine failure, though, that screen is the least
of your worries. Keeping the airplane straight is the main prioirity
and of course you're going to feel the yaw in your ass before you
notice anything else. You'd be onto the instruments straight away to
determine th ecorrection required, though you'd already have a very
good idea, and a big bootful of rudder and/ or aileron to keep you
from rolling on your back. After this has settled down, you ensure
your flight path is correct, and then you'd check out your engine
instruments to determine what the problem is. And you have to do this
carefully and judiciously, because they can lie to you too,
particularly if some damage has occured. Of course, in a piston
there's an additional problem that mxtard has no idea of either, and
that is that the MP is next to useless in determining the side that's
failed because the MP you might have been pulling could be the same
as ambient anyway. Anyhow, the point is, the first clue you're going
to get is your head bouncing off either a window or your copilot. If
you've been staring at your engine gauges anticipating a failure as
you fly along, you're probably going to fly into something sooner
rather than later.... But of course MX would ignore that feeling in
his ass as one of the donkeys retired and quickly analize his clocks.
Then, and only then, would he take the appropriate action, which , by
this time, would be to make a brief utterance of regret as his
aircraft entered the earth inverted.

Bertie

no fair! His bonanza doesn't have turbo props!

Hell yes, it's the kick in the ass that usually lets you know
something untoward is in the offing, along with auditory cues, g-
loading, etc., but if you don't verify with instruments then you could
end up well and truly screwed...and sometimes that helps to only a
point. There was the case of the airliner in central america
(1980's?) that went into an inverted dive because the pilot's
artificial horizon (if memory serves) was slaved to the co-pilot's and
that one had a wiggy connection such that it was giving intermittently
correct readings. They did a perfect 1g maneuver too- right into the
ground (at night)....but the wings and such were come off first.

I've always wondered why, in such circumstances, one would not take
the time to verify the situation by checking rate of climb/descent and
indicated airspeed rather than trust *one* instrument?




Well, that was an interesting one. It was in Panama.Copa airlines, I
think.
You've got it pretty much right. The skipper was the chief pilot and
the FO was the greenest in the company, so there would have been a steep
cockpit gradient. IOW the FO would have been a bit reluctant to speak
out. Also, being a Latino cutlure, and paternal in it's roots, there is
an even stronger reluctance to criticise one's superiors. Maternal
societies produce behavior patterns more condusive to what we would call
good CRM.
Having said that, I don't know if there would have been enough awareness
of the situation on the part of the FO anyway. The 737-200 has a
ferocious roll rate when the stick is fully displaced. We're talking a
roll rate much faster than a cherokee or similar, BTW, and they were
probably on their backs before the FO could figure out what was going
on. As well as that, he might have been doiing something else, like
tuning a radio or picking up his clipboard when it all started.
Like you said, they did suspect the connectors on the back af the
Captains horizon, but if you saw the film, the guys who examined the
debris pulled the connectors through their seats on the wire side of the
connection. The hole they pulled them through was smaller than the
connector. The connecting wire, to be installed, has to be pushed clean
through, the connector attached, and then the wire pulled from the far
side to seat the connector. By pulling them clean through, they squashed
the connectors and destroyed any evidence of a loose connection forever.
They did this right on camera!
However, that airplane came from Brittania airlines and the Captain's
hrizon was modified in all of the Brittania 737s to come off a different
bus than Boeing origianlly intended. They did this to improve the
battery endurance so they could make longer overwater flights. Normally
the capt's horizon ( Flight Director is the proper term, in this case,
but we call them horizons just the same) is wired to the standby bus,
which is powered by the battery. Brittania had theirs modified, coming
off the #2 AC bus. Point being they interfered with the natural order of
things and that is often not such a good thing.
So, it is entirely possible that the horizon display was sticking in
various places and confusing the captain. He could easily have looked at
the standby horizon which is just to the right of the central display,
but if he was wrestling with the airplane and down to lizard brain
capability with the nonsensical picture he was getting he was probably
too far behind his mental power curve to do that. According to the
theory it not only froze, but it would then unlock and update suddenly
and then freeze again. It all certainly makes sense when you look at the
flight path. It's only a theory though. I hope if anything similar
hapens to me that his experience will cause me to have a quick look at
the standby horizon.
Another possibility is that this was the first 737 rudder hardover
accident. I kind of doubt it, and in fact, I'm not 100% convinced the
other two 737s were brought down by this, but the NTSB are pretty sure
so I'll defer to them!

Bertie

gatt wrote in
news
Mxsmanic wrote:
Viperdoc writes:

Anthony, were all of your pronouncements based upon your instrument
training? Who was your instructor? What did you get on the written
exam? How much time do you have in IMC (real, not simulated?)

All of my statements are based on study.

Bull****. What did you study? The usenet?

-c


Anthony studies by sticking his head up his ass and farting.

Dudley Henriques wrote:


I'm afraid we're still not on the same page.
If you are USING a seat of the pants sensation as a cue to ACT rather
than as a cue that expansion of the cross check is warranted, you are
going to die in instrument conditions.....period!
You NEVER include a seat of the pants feeling into your reactive action
path when on instruments.
Look; let me make this perfectly clear. There is NO actionable
difference between the "leans" and a "seat of the pants" sensation. BOTH
are present and of course felt. BOTH might be telling you something so
they should not be ignored. But BOTH are physical sensations and as such
are NEVER used as a source to make a control change while IFR.
If you feel a physical sensation while on instruments, it is indeed a
cue, but NOT an actionable cue. ALL sensations are simply there. You
NEVER act in ANY way on what ANY sensation is giving you in the way of a
cue. If the sensation is expected by something you have done control
wise that's fine. If it isn't, don't act on it. Your scan is in progress
at all times. If something looks out of line, EXPAND THE SCAN!
You control the aircraft based on instrument cues ONLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You exist in a world of physical cues. Simply know they are there and go
to the panel!!
God.I hope this clears this up!


Clear and concise. Excellent!!

On May 20, 9:55*am, Dudley Henriques wrote:

BOTH might be telling you something so
they should not be ignored.

Exactly my point. Especially the absense of an expected sensation
(see further down).

But BOTH are physical sensations and as such
are NEVER used as a source to make a control change while IFR.

Agree, and I never said to make a control change. I use it to VERIFY
an existing condition. If I am climbing, AI shows normal pitch up and
I feel positive G's life is good. If I add power to capture the glide
slope to to drive it level to capture it, needles move in the
directioin expected and I feel it in the seat of my pants, life is
good. The feeling is CONFIRMING the instrument trends, life is good.

If you feel a physical sensation while on instruments, it is indeed a
cue, but NOT an actionable cue. ALL sensations are simply there. You
NEVER act in ANY way on what ANY sensation is giving you in the way of a
cue.

And this is where I may digress a little, operative word is a little.
It's actionable in the sense of expanding your scan in determining why
something is not right. I am not saying make a control change based
on a sensation, but I am saying start looking elsewhere on your panel
to resolve the discrepancy between what you feel and what you see.

Using my example, pitch up AI, and not feeling G's made me look
elsewhere for discrepancies. If I would have followed the AI, first
instinct would have been push the nose over and rectify the AI WITHOUT
considering other instruments. It was the discrepancy of not feeling
the G's and showing a pitch up that made me ACT to further my scan to
the VSI and airspeed QUICKER then my normal scan process would have
taken. I made NO changes in my airplane configuration until I
furthered my scan to my secondary gauges

If the sensation is expected by something you have done control
wise that's fine.

THIS IS EXACTLY what I am saying. Based on control INPUTS, I should
have a corresponding feeling in the seat of my pants.

If it isn't, don't act on it. Your scan is in progress
at all times.

THIS IS EXACTLY what I am saying. If there is a discrepancy, need to
search further for what is going on, not act on sense.

You control the aircraft based on instrument cues ONLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Agree, and what you feel should be what the instrument reads. If
climbing, feel some G's. The feeling CONFIRMS what the instruments
read, not the other way around. This is what I am trying to drive
home.

God.I hope this clears this up!

Hopefully what I say above clears it up. I really think we are on the
same page, just a matter of how I am wording it :-)

On May 20, 9:16 am, romeomike wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote:

I'm afraid we're still not on the same page.
If you are USING a seat of the pants sensation as a cue to ACT rather
than as a cue that expansion of the cross check is warranted, you are
going to die in instrument conditions.....period!
You NEVER include a seat of the pants feeling into your reactive action
path when on instruments.
Look; let me make this perfectly clear. There is NO actionable
difference between the "leans" and a "seat of the pants" sensation. BOTH
are present and of course felt. BOTH might be telling you something so
they should not be ignored. But BOTH are physical sensations and as such
are NEVER used as a source to make a control change while IFR.
If you feel a physical sensation while on instruments, it is indeed a
cue, but NOT an actionable cue. ALL sensations are simply there. You
NEVER act in ANY way on what ANY sensation is giving you in the way of a
cue. If the sensation is expected by something you have done control
wise that's fine. If it isn't, don't act on it. Your scan is in progress
at all times. If something looks out of line, EXPAND THE SCAN!
You control the aircraft based on instrument cues ONLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You exist in a world of physical cues. Simply know they are there and go
to the panel!!
God.I hope this clears this up!

Clear and concise. Excellent!!

Yeah I really love that word "ACTIONABLE".
I'm going to use it actionably.
Give Dud another star"*".
Ken